Stand firm on supporting abortion rights overseas

United Nations Population Fund's Director Dr. Babatunde Osotimehin listens to Minister of International Development and La Francophone Marie-Claude Bibeau during a press conference in Ottawa on Monday, March 7, 2016. iPolitics/Matthew Usherwood

Former prime minister Stephen Harper was uncharacteristically dovish when it came to abortions in developing countries.

A leader who ferociously attacked moral equivalency between Israel and its enemies, and who called for environmental groups to get out from behind their green rhetoric and reveal their ulterior motives as opponents of economic growth, Harper was exceptionally polite when it came to interfering in the cultural mores of countries in need of aid funding.

Despite running a country where abortions are legal and (nominally) accessible, Harper was the architect behind a historical investment in maternal and newborn health — but didn’t include any funding for programs that include abortion.

Harper could have been referring to the Canadian aid partners who would refuse to work on abortions. But his message also implied that pushing for abortion rights overseas — or at least supporting them in places where the procedure is legal but still contentious — would be a little too forceful for his liking.

Before the Conservatives took power, Harper routinely chastised Canadian foreign policy as being devoid of values. As prime minister, he made headline-grabbing decisions — like saying Russian President Vladimir Putin was in league with thugs and closing the Canadian embassy in Iran — that were designed to make Canada sounds like a righteous voice in a sea of relativism and compromise.

But on abortions, Canada under Harper did its best to not get too pushy — even if the most important partner on maternal and newborn health aid, the United Nations Population Fund (UNPF), argues that where the procedure is legal, it should be safe and accessible.

Harper’s laxity on abortion rights, which revealed a deeper antipathy toward them than his silence on the matter in domestic policy suggests, seemed to loom large during a Monday announcement by the Liberal government on this very file.

“We also believe that programming decisions on these matters should be driven by evidence and outcomes, not ideology,” said Bibeau in a news release announcing the new money.

When asked if the news was related to a Liberal campaign promise to fund abortions overseas under the maternal health strategy launched under Harper, the minister said today’s announcement was not, in fact, related to that investment and that there were no dates for any developments on that front.

Later, Dr. Osotimehin stepped in and explained that the UNPF, which will be directing the Canadian aid money, does actually spend money in healthcare systems where abortions are performed.

“What we do is advocate for abortion where it is legal, that it should be safe,” said Osotimehin. “So in countries where it is legal, we advocate that it should be safe. In countries where it is not legal, we advocate that they should have compassionate host abortion care, because we know it occurs and we don’t want women to die.”

The best we can make of this confusing messaging is that the new money isn’t earmarked for abortions, but that the money could — in theory — be spent on them.

Both Bibeau and the UNPF seem to want to defend abortions as a legitimate part of family planning while steering clear of sounding like they prefer it over other options — i.e., sounding like they “promote abortions.”

But why hide behind meaningless arguments over whether the money is earmarked when government policy is to provide for abortions in aid funding? Abortions should be used as a tool in family planning. That does not constitute wanting people to have abortions. It’s a view that falls basically in line with the domestic Canadian position — and the Liberals’ campaign promise. Why entertain the impression the government is afraid to fund abortions?

And in the future, what would be wrong about pushing for the legality of abortions in countries where they remain illegal? Advocating for anything less seems an act of relativism that even Harper — the one who stood up for Israel and against Russia and Iran — would disdain.